Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83065 

Secondary Lead Smelting Operations, 

State effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62– 

296.604, Electric Arc Furnace Equipped 

Secondary Steel Manufacturing 

Operations, state effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.700, Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) Particulate 

Matter, State effective August 14, 2019; 

Rule 62–296.702, Fossil Fuel Steam 

Generators, State effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.704, Asphalt Concrete 

Plants, State effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.705, Phosphate Processing 

Operations, State effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.707, Electric Arc Furnace, 

State effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62– 

296.708, Sweat or Pot Furnaces, State 

effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62–296.711, 

Materials Handling, Sizing, Screening, 

Crushing and Grinding Operations, 

State effective July 10, 2014; and Rule 

62–296.712, Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing Process Operations, 

State effective July 10, 2014. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 office (please contact the 

person identified in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Proposed Action 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve the April 1, 

2022, Florida SIP revision consisting of 

amendments to Rules 62–296.320(4), 

62–296.406, 62–296.602, 62–296.603, 

62–296.604, 62–296.700, 62–296.702, 

62–296.704, 62–296.705, 62–296.707, 

62–296.708, 62–296.711, and 62– 

296.712 in the Florida SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a State program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State of Florida did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 

analysis and did not consider EJ in this 

proposed action. Due to the nature of 

the action being proposed here, this 

proposed action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this proposed action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 21, 2023. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26107 Filed 11–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 268 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0372; FRL 11026– 

04–OLEM] 

Department of Energy Hanford Mixed 

Radioactive Waste Land Disposal 

Restrictions Variance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to grant a treatability 

variance from the Land Disposal 

Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards 

for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

for approximately 2,000 gallons of 

mixed low-activity waste from the 

Hanford Site in Washington State. The 

petitioner demonstrated that treatment 

of the waste to the specified standard is 

technically inappropriate, and the 

treatment variance is sufficient to 

minimize threats to human health and 

the environment posed by land disposal 

of the waste. If the variance is granted, 

the waste will be stabilized subject to 

specified conditions, and disposed at 

EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah and/or 

Waste Control Specialists in Andrews 

County, Texas. The variance would 

allow DOE, Washington, and EPA to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83066 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1See 51 FR at 40605–40606 (November 7, 1986); 

see also 62 FR 64504 (December 5, 1997). 

2According to 42 CFR 268.44(a)(2), a petitioner 

may obtain a variance from an applicable treatment 

standard if it is inappropriate to require the waste 

to be treated to the level specified in the treatment 

standard or by the method specified as the 

treatment standard, even though such treatment is 

technically possible. To show that this is the case, 

as applicable here, the petitioner must demonstrate 

that treatment to the specified level or by the 

evaluate the regulatory pathways by 

which separation, pretreatment, 

stabilization, and offsite disposal could 

be implemented for other Hanford 

mixed low-activity waste. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 28, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2023–0372, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Office of Land and Emergency 

Management Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bethany Russell, Waste Characterization 

Branch, Materials Recovery and Waste 

Management Division, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(5304P), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 202–566–0823; email address: 

russell.bethany@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

A. Docket 

EPA has established a docket for this 

action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2023–0372. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the https://

www.regulations.gov index. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center. The Public 

Reading Room for the docket is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern, 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room and Docket Center 

is (202) 566–1744. 

B. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023– 

0372, at https://www.regulations.gov 

(our preferred method), or the other 

methods identified in the ADDRESSES

section. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from the 

docket. The EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

C. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through https://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI to only the following 

address: ORCR Document Control 

Officer, Mail Code 5305–P, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460; Attn: Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OLEM–2023–0372. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Part 2. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this document apply to me? 

This action applies only to DOE’s 

Hanford facility located in Richland, 

Washington. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

On August 2, 2023, the EPA received 

a petition from the DOE requesting a 

variance from a treatment standard of 

the LDR of 40 CFR 268.40 for disposal 

of approximately 2,000 gallons of 

hazardous wastes generated from DOE’s 

Test Bed Initiative (TBI). This document 

proposes to grant DOE’s petition for a 

variance pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44. 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

Sections 3004(d) through (g) of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6294(d)–(g), 

prohibit the land disposal of hazardous 

wastes unless such wastes meet the LDR 

treatment standards (or treatment 

standards) established by EPA (or the 

Agency). Section 3004(m) of RCRA, 42 

U.S.C. 6924(m), requires EPA to set 

levels or methods of treatment, if any, 

which substantially diminish the 

toxicity of the waste or substantially 

reduce the likelihood of migration of 

hazardous constituents from the waste 

so that short-term and long-term threats 

to human health and the environment 

are minimized. EPA has established 

treatment standards for all hazardous 

wastes. 

However, when facilities generate 

hazardous wastes which cannot be 

treated to the specified levels, or when 

it is technically inappropriate for such 

wastes to undergo the prescribed 

treatment, they can apply for a variance 

from a treatment standard.1 The 

requirements for a treatment variance 

are found at 40 CFR 268.44. An 

applicant for a treatment variance may 

demonstrate that it is inappropriate to 

require a waste to be treated to the level 

or by the method specified as the 

treatment standard, even though such 

treatment is technically possible. This is 

the criterion pertinent to today’s 

action.2 The petitioner must also 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83067 

specified method is technically inappropriate (for 

example, resulting in combustion of large amounts 

of mildly contaminated environmental media). 

Section 268.44(m) further requires the petitioner to 

demonstrate that compliance with any given 

treatment variance is sufficient to minimize threats 

to human health and the environment posed by 

land disposal of the waste. 

3See Hanford Test Bed Initiative Fact Sheet, July, 

2018, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/ 

07/f53/Hanford%20Test%20Bed%20Initiative%20

Fact%20Sheet%207-12-18.pdf. 

4 Government Accountability Office, GAO 22– 

104365, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to 

Enable DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of 

Billions of Dollars (2021), at 7. 

5See WAC 173–303–140, which incorporates by 

reference 40 CFR 268 at WAC 173–303–140(2)(a). 

6 55 FR 22520, 22627 (June 1, 1990). 

7See GAO 22–104365, Actions Needed to Enable 

DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of Billions of 

Dollars (2021), at 2. 

8See 78 FR 75916. 

9U.S. Department of Energy, ORP–67633, 2,000- 

Gallon Test Bed Initiative Demonstration Research, 

Development, and Demonstration Permit 

Application, Revision. 0 (June 8, 2023) (hereinafter, 

RD&D Permit Application). 

10U.S. Department of Energy, 23–TF–0023, Test 

Bed Initiative Land Disposal Restrictions Variance 

Petition (August 1, 2023). 

11U.S. Department of Energy, Test Bed Initiative 

at Hanford, Report to Congress (April 2019), at 7. 

12See U.S. Department of Energy, Memorandum: 

Approval of Exemption of Use of Non-U.S. 

Department of Energy Facilities for the 2,000-Gallon 

Test Bed Initiative Demonstration (June 8, 2023). 

demonstrate that compliance with any 

given treatment variance is sufficient to 

minimize threats to human health and 

the environment posed by land disposal 

of the waste. 

III. Background 

A. Hanford Waste Description 

Nearly 56 million gallons of 

radioactive and hazardous waste (mixed 

waste) were generated from the Hanford 

Site’s role in our nation’s defense 

program during the Manhattan Project 

and the Cold War.3 A total of 149 single 

shell tanks (SSTs) were constructed and 

entered service at Hanford between the 

1940s and 1960s to contain this waste. 

Beginning in the 1960s, an additional 28 

double shell tanks (DSTs) were also 

constructed at Hanford. DST capacity is 

crucial for retrieval of SST waste. 

Between the 1940s and the mid-1980s, 

approximately 240,000 tons of 

hazardous chemicals were added to 

Hanford’s tanks.4

DOE regulates certain radioactive 

materials, including the radioactive 

portion of mixed waste at Hanford, 

pursuant to its self-regulating authority 

under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

(AEA), 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq. The 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology (ECY) regulates the hazardous 

portion of the mixed waste as dangerous 

waste pursuant to the Revised Code of 

Washington (RCW) Chapter 70A.300 

and Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) Chapter 173–303, as a State 

authorized to implement a hazardous 

waste program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

Under RCRA and RCRA-authorized 

Washington regulations, mixed wastes 

are generally subject to the treatment 

standards in 40 CFR 268.40. Where 

there is no specific treatment standard 

set forth for a mixed waste, the standard 

applicable to the hazardous waste code 

applies to the mixed waste. For certain 

mixed wastes, specific treatment 

standards have been established. 

Treatment by high-level vitrification 

(HLVIT) applies to the subcategory of 

radioactive high-level mixed wastes 

generated during the reprocessing of 

fuel rods and bearing the waste codes 

D002 and/or D004 through D011.5 EPA 

selected vitrification as the Best 

Demonstrated Available Technology 

(BDAT) for this waste, and established 

HLVIT as the treatment standard, in part 

because stabilization would not provide 

treatment of the high-level radioactive 

portion of the waste, and because the 

potential health hazards associated with 

exposure to radioactivity during 

analysis of this high-level mixed waste 

precluded setting a concentration-based 

treatment standard.6

B. Description of the Proposed 

Treatment and Disposal 

In 2013, DOE updated its decision to 

separate tank wastes with low levels of 

long-lived radionuclides (referred to as 

low-activity waste or LAW) from other 

tank waste, and to vitrify some of the 

LAW at Hanford’s Tank Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

(WTP). The vitrified waste form will be 

disposed of onsite at Hanford’s 

Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The 

WTP has the design capacity to treat 

only around 60 percent of the LAW 

from the Hanford tanks.7 For the 

remaining LAW, DOE did not select a 

treatment method and found it would be 

‘‘beneficial to study further the potential 

cost, safety, and environmental 

performance of supplemental treatment 

technologies.’’ 8 DOE therefore proposed 

the TBI Demonstration. 

DOE describes the TBI Demonstration 

as: (1) the onsite separation and 

pretreatment of supernate from Tank 

SY–101, located in the 200 West Area 

on the Central Plateau of the Hanford 

Site to remove the bulk of the key 

radionuclides from the supernate; (2) 

transport of the pretreated liquid waste 

to an offsite treatment facility for 

treatment using stabilization/ 

solidification (grouting); and (3) 

disposal of the grouted waste form at a 

commercial disposal facility outside the 

State of Washington. Effectuating the 

TBI Demonstration would allow DOE, 

Washington, and EPA to evaluate the 

regulatory pathways by which 

separation, pretreatment, stabilization 

(grouting), and offsite disposal could be 

implemented for other Hanford mixed 

low-activity waste. Concurrently, DOE 

is applying for a Research Development 

& Demonstration (RD&D) Permit from 

ECY to perform the onsite pretreatment 

activities associated with the TBI 

Demonstration.9

On August 2, 2023, DOE submitted to 

EPA a petition for a treatment variance 

under 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2) to implement 

the TBI Demonstration by treating 

approximately 2,000 gallons of 

supernate from Tank SY–101.10 DOE 

selected Tank SY–101 for the TBI 

because of, among other reasons, the 

tank waste chemistry, including low 

organic concentration.11 Separation and 

pretreatment would involve filtration of 

solids, and use of a crystalline 

silicotitanate ion exchange media to 

capture and remove key radionuclides 

(including cesium (Cs-137) and 

daughter barium (Ba-137m) and 

strontium (Sr-90)) from the supernate. 

Tank SY–101 consists of two layers: the 

supernate, which comprises 

approximately 81 percent of the tank 

volume, and an undissolved salt cake 

layer beneath the supernate. 

As requested in the petition and 

provided in this proposal, the pretreated 

supernate would be subject to a 

stabilization treatment method, 

hereafter referred to as STABL, with 

verification sampling to ensure the 

treated waste meets the numerical LDR 

treatment standards applicable to the 

waste codes provided in this proposal. 

The offsite commercial treatment 

facilities identified in the petition, 

EnergySolutions and Waste Control 

Specialists, would be required to 

conduct the stabilization treatment in 

compliance with their RCRA permits, as 

well as their radioactive material 

licenses. 

DOE anticipates that half of the 

pretreated liquid would be transported 

to EnergySolutions for grouting and 

disposal at its commercial facility in 

Clive, Utah, and half would be 

transported to Waste Control Specialists 

for grouting and disposal at its Federal 

Waste Facility (FWF) in Andrews 

County, Texas.12 The process totes used 

to transport the pretreated liquid waste 

offsite to EnergySolutions and Waste 

Control Specialists for treatment would 

meet all applicable U.S. Department of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83068 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

13U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ORP–2022– 

02, Revision 0, Final Waste Incidental to 

Reprocessing Evaluation for the Test Bed Initiative 

Demonstration (hereinafter, Final WIR Evaluation) 

(March 2023); see 88 FR 16615 (March 20, 2023). 

https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/WIR_

%E2%80%93_Final_WIR_Evaluation_for_the_

TBI1.pdf. 

14WIR Determination. 

15U.S. Department of Energy, Final 

Environmental Assessment of the Test Bed Initiative 

Demonstration, DOE/EA–2086 (March 2023). 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ 

ea-2086-test-bed-initiative-hanford-2023-03_0.pdf. 

16The following tribes and State agencies were 

notified of the preparation of the EA: Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez 

Perce Tribe, Yakama Nation Tribe, Wanapum Tribe, 

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, State of Utah Public Lands Policy 

Coordination Office, Oregon State Department of 

Energy, Washington State Department of Ecology. 

17 Finding of No Significant Impact Test Bed 

Initiative Demonstration Hanford Site, Washington, 

DOE/EA–2086 (March 16, 2023). https://

www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/Final_--_230316_-_

NEPA_FONSI_for_TBI_(Digital).pdf. 

18For Washington’s statements describing its 

position, see FFRDC Report 2023, Volume II p. 494– 

495. 

19 GAO–22–104365. 

20See Petition, Table 1. The data provided in 

Table 1 is derived from the Final Analytical Report 

for Tank 241–SY–101 TBI Grab Sampling 2018, 

RPP–RPT–61303 Rev. 05 (October 2020). All waste 

codes that appear on the DST System Part A form 

are included in this variance, with the exception of 

F039 (because the DST System has not accepted 

waste bearing that waste code). The sample result 

suggests that Tank SY–101 supernate displays only 

a limited subset of the waste codes listed on the 

DST System Part A form. See RD&D Permit 

Application, Sec. 4.1.2 and Table 4–1. DOE 

explains that Tank SY–101 supernate does not 

exhibit the characteristics of ignitability (D001) and 

reactivity (D003) before or after pretreatment. 

Nonetheless, EPA understands that Washington 

views the SY–101 waste as bearing all of the codes 

on the Part A form (except for F039) and is therefore 

including the codes in the proposed variance, since 

the facility is regulated under Washington’s 

authorized program. The inclusion of D001 and 

D003 does not affect the treatment required by the 

variance, since treatment for underlying hazardous 

characteristics for these waste codes is accounted 

for by the treatment required for the corrosivity 

(D002) and toxicity (D004–043) characteristics. 

Transportation (USDOT) requirements 

under 49 CFR Subchapter C. 

In accordance with DOE Order 435.1 

Chg 2(AdminChg), Radioactive Waste 

Management and DOE Manual 435.1–1 

Chg 3(LtdChg), Radioactive Waste 

Management Manual, DOE completed a 

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) 

Evaluation for the 2,000-gallon TBI 

Demonstration in March 2023.13 Based 

on the WIR Evaluation, DOE determined 

that the separated, pretreated, and 

solidified supernate from Tank SY–101 

is waste incidental to the reprocessing 

of spent nuclear fuel, is not high-level 

waste, and can be managed as a lowlevel waste.14

DOE also completed a Final 

Environmental Assessment (Final EA) 

for the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 

DOE’s NEPA implementation 

regulations, 10 CFR part 1021.15 In the 

Final EA, DOE analyzed the 

environmental impacts associated with 

four combinations of facilities for 

grouting and disposal of the pretreated 

2,000 gallons of supernate from Tank 

SY–101. The EA evaluated potential 

impacts of the TBI Demonstration to air 

quality, human health (both from 

normal operations and accidents or 

destructive acts), waste management, 

and transportation. Any proposal to 

separate, pretreat, stabilize, and dispose 

of any tank waste other than the TBI 

supernate from Tank SY–101 would be 

evaluated in a separate NEPA review. 

DOE sent the draft EA with a request for 

input to host States and Tribes as well 

as States and Tribes that could be 

affected by the proposed action, as 

documented in Section 4 of the EA.16

DOE determined that the four 

alternatives analyzed for grouting and 

disposal will not constitute a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment 

within the meaning of NEPA, and 

therefore issued a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) on March 

16, 2023.17

IV. Basis for EPA’s Proposed 

Determination 

A. EPA’s Approach to This Proposed 

Variance 

The regulatory framework and 

associated requirements of the RCRA 

LDR standards must be addressed to 

implement the 2,000-gallon TBI 

Demonstration and dispose of the 

grouted waste form at EnergySolutions 

in Clive, Utah, and/or Waste Control 

Specialists in Andrews County, Texas. 

As mentioned above, the LDR standard 

under RCRA and RCRA-authorized 

Washington regulations for the 

subcategory of radioactive high-level 

mixed wastes generated during the 

reprocessing of fuel rods and bearing the 

waste codes D002 and/or D004 through 

D011 is HLVIT. DOE asserts that after 

Tank SY–101 supernate is processed 

through TBI, including separation of 

high- and low-activity waste fractions, 

pretreatment, and solidification, 

following a re-classification through a 

WIR determination, the solidified lowactivity waste fraction can be managed 

and disposed as low-level radioactive 

waste. Once those steps are completed, 

DOE believes the HLVIT treatment 

standard does not apply and thus the 

separated, pretreated mixed waste 

would not be required to be vitrified. 

Washington interprets its RCRAauthorized LDR requirements such that 

the waste designation and all associated 

LDR treatment standards, including 

HLVIT, have already attached to the 

tank waste and remain attached to the 

separated, pretreated low-activity 

fraction of the tank waste until satisfied. 

Thus, according to Washington, if the 

waste is not vitrified, the HLVIT 

standard would need to be removed 

through some regulatory vehicle, such 

as a treatment variance, in order for that 

waste to be grouted instead of 

vitrified.18

EPA’s decision to propose this 

treatment variance approval does not 

resolve DOE and the State’s differing 

interpretations of the LDR requirements, 

and EPA is not concluding that HLVIT 

does or does not apply to the TBI waste. 

Rather, EPA proposes to approve this 

variance to provide a clear regulatory 

pathway for the 2,000-gallon TBI to 

proceed. As documented in a 2021 

report by the General Accountability 

Office,19 DOE, Washington, and EPA 

agree that the TBI should proceed, to 

test the viability of a grouting approach 

to some of the Hanford tank waste. 

However, the regulatory disagreement 

between DOE and Washington remains 

unresolved. In view of this 

background—and the importance DOE, 

Washington and EPA all attach to 

making progress on the Hanford tank 

waste mission—EPA proposes to 

approve a variance clearly allowing the 

TBI to proceed, on the specific terms 

and subject to the specific conditions 

proposed today, regardless of whose 

interpretation forms the starting point 

for the variance analysis. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to subject 

the TBI waste to a STABL (stabilization) 

treatment method, with verification 

sampling to ensure the treated waste 

meets the LDR numerical standards, as 

applicable, for waste codes F001–F005 

(limited to constituents associated with 

spent solvent activities at the Hanford 

facility); D001–D011, D018, D019, D022, 

D028–D030, D033–D036, D038–D041, 

and D043. The waste codes included 

herein are those identified on the 

Dangerous Waste Permit Application 

Part A form for the DST System, Rev. 4 

(December 14, 2009), which includes 

Tank SY–101.20 The codes include 

listed hazardous wastes bearing organic 

constituents, and toxic and corrosive 

characteristic wastes which ordinarily 

must meet concentration-based 

treatment standards under Washington’s 

RCRA-authorized program. DOE’s 

petition requests to use STABL to meet 

the numeric standard, therefore these 

wastes are included in this variance. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83069 

21See Petition, Table 1. 

22Because the final grouted waste form being 

disposed of will be a nonwastewater, the NWW 

standards are the relevant treatment standards for 

this proposed variance. 

23FFRDC Report 2023, Volume I page 52. 

24See FFRDC Report 2023 page 52. 

25 GAO–21–73. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2)(i), a 

variance may be approved if it is 

technically inappropriate to treat the 

waste to the level specified in the 

treatment standard, or by the method 

specified as the treatment standard, 

even though such treatment is 

technically possible. As with any 

section 268.44 treatment variance, the 

petitioner must also show that 

compliance with the variance will be 

sufficient to minimize threats to human 

health and the environment posed by 

land disposal of the waste. 

B. Proposed Technically Inappropriate 

Determination 

In promulgating the Land Disposal 

Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled 

Wastes (Third Third Rule) that 

established the HLVIT treatment 

standard, EPA expressly recognized the 

effectiveness of grouting for 

immobilizing inorganic hazardous 

constituents in low-level mixed waste: 

The Agency believes that for treatment of 

metals in low-level mixed wastes and for 

some TRU mixed wastes containing low 

radioactive components, chemical 

precipitation will remove the metals in 

wastewaters, and stabilization technologies 

will reduce the leachability of the metal 

constituents in nonwastewater matrices. 

These are the same technologies that are 

applicable to nonradioactive wastes 

containing metals. 

DOE submitted data demonstrating the 

applicability of stabilization as a treatment 

technology for the low-level waste fractions 

that are separated from the high-level waste 

generated during the reprocessing of fuel 

rods. As used by one particular facility, a 

stabilization process called grout 

stabilization involves blending commercially 

produced cement-based reagents with the 

liquid low-level waste fraction. The material 

sets up as a solid mass, immobilizing the 

waste. The performance data indicate that 

stabilization provides immobilization of the 

characteristic metal constituents and 

radioactive contaminants for this low-level 

radioactive waste, and that it is possible to 

stabilize the RCRA hazardous portions to 

meet the treatment levels for the 

characteristic metals. . . . 

DOE provided information to support that 

vitrification is an applicable technology for 

their high-level wastes generated from the 

reprocessing of fuel rods. Treatment can be 

accomplished by using either direct 

vitrification or a more complex treatment 

process which includes a series of chemical 

steps that separate the low-level radioactive 

waste fractions from the high-level 

radioactive waste. The high-level radioactive 

portion is then vitrified. When using 

separation technologies such as precipitation 

followed by settling or filtration, the bulk of 

the radioactivity can be incorporated into a 

high-level liquid waste containing up to 99 

percent of the radioactivity of the original 

irradiated fuel rods. By separating high-level 

and low-level mixed wastes, the amount of 

high-level waste that may require 

vitrification treatment can be reduced. 

[55 FR 22626–2627 (June 1, 1990).] 

Tank SY–101 contains both inorganic 

and organic constituents; however, 

sampling results from Tank SY–101 

supernate 21 show that the organic 

constituents in the waste are at least one 

order of magnitude below the applicable 

nonwastewater (NWW) concentrationbased LDR treatment standards except 

for 1-butanol (also referred to as n-Butyl 

alcohol).22 The sample results show that 

1-butanol was not detected in the 

sample, however, the laboratory 

detection limit (2.78 mg/L) for this 

constituent is slightly above the NWW 

concentration-based standard (2.6 mg/ 

kg). Thus, 1-butanol is either below or 

just slightly above this standard in the 

pre-treated waste, and EPA is confident 

that it will meet the LDR standard 

following treatment, and that grouting is 

an appropriate treatment technology for 

this constituent in this waste. 

As referenced above, EPA expresses 

no opinion on whether the waste subject 

to this proposed variance must be 

vitrified under ECY’s RCRA-authorized 

LDR regulations. However, EPA believes 

that, under the facts and circumstances 

presented in DOE’s petition for this 

waste stream and the terms of this 

proposed variance, it would be 

technically inappropriate to require the 

Tank SY–101 supernate to be treated by 

vitrification. As explained further 

below, in view of the efficacy of grout 

for immobilizing inorganic constituents, 

the fact that the organics concentrations 

in the pretreated liquid waste are below 

(or in the case of 1-butanol, below or 

just slightly above) the NWW standards, 

and the protective geologic features of 

the identified disposal sites, EPA 

believes that requiring Tank SY–101 

supernate to be vitrified would be 

technically inappropriate. This is 

because vitrification would require 

more time to implement, result in 

additional secondary impacts, and be 

more costly—outcomes that EPA 

considers unnecessary and undesirable 

in view of its proposed determination 

that grouting under the terms of the 

proposed variance would minimize 

threats. 

The proposed approval applies only 

to the 2,000 gallons of separated, 

pretreated supernate from Tank SY–101. 

Therefore, these distinctions in impacts 

and outcomes between grouting and 

vitrifying the waste are small. That said, 

EPA believes they are tangible in 

proportion to the amount of waste 

involved, which is also small. Moreover, 

the TBI Demonstration is intended to 

test the viability of an approach 

involving grouting and offsite disposal 

for other low-activity waste from 

Hanford. Thus, the TBI could provide 

the basis for a broader approach under 

which these distinctions would be more 

significant. 

First, EPA believes grouting the waste, 

under the terms of the proposed 

variance, would speed up 

implementation of retrieval, treatment 

and disposal. In a peer-reviewed report 

issued in 2023, the Federally Funded 

Research and Development Center 

(FFRDC) recommended grouting and 

off-site disposal in parallel to 

vitrification due to the improved 

execution schedule and probability of 

successful project completion when 

compared to all other effective 

alternatives for waste beyond the 

capacity of the existing DFLAW.23 Tank 

SY–101 is not currently part of the 

direct-feed system for vitrification. To 

vitrify LAW from SY–101 would require 

construction of new infrastructure. 

Thus, the TBI would allow the 2,000 

gallons of TBI waste to be retrieved, 

treated, and disposed of more quickly 

than would otherwise be possible. 

Conducting TBI in parallel to on-site 

vitrification of LAW from other tanks 

could provide multiple pathways for 

disposal of Hanford tank waste and 

provide the capability to achieve a more 

rapid reduction in the amount of waste 

stored, and therefore result in a more 

rapid reduction in risk to human health 

and the environment.24 Moreover, DST 

space in West Area is needed to allow 

for the receipt of waste retrievals from 

the aging SSTs for vitrification. In 2021 

the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) reported that insufficient tank 

space is the top risk to the Hanford 

cleanup mission, with a 95 percent 

chance of running out of DST space to 

continue retrieval of SST waste.25 The 

May 2017 GAO report, which discussed 

the potential reduction in short-term 

risks and long-term costs from treating 

a portion of LAW with grout, stated that 

grouting could reduce the 

environmental risk posed by leaks from 

aging tanks by removing waste from 

such tanks sooner than vitrification 

would. The availability of DST space, 

including in SY–101, is thus integral to 

DOE’s cleanup mission at Hanford. 

Grouting the TBI waste would free up 

2,000 gallons of DST space that could be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83070 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

26See FFRDC 2023 page 52. 27See GAO 22–104365, p. 44–45; GAO, GAO 21– 

73, Hanford Cleanup, DOE’s Efforts to Close Tank 

Farms Would Benefit from Clearer Legal Authorities 

and Communication (January 2021). See, also, 2023 

FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. 1, p. 9–11 (finding, 

for example, that every two years of WTP 

vitrification operations without LAW supplemental 

treatment adds one year to the overall mission). 

28See, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, 

App. B. 

29See, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p. 

3–4. 

30See 2019 FFRDC Report; 2022 GAO report; 

2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report. 

31 GAO–17–306 

32 GAO–21–73. 

33The geology underlying the IDF differs from the 

geology underlying these two facilities in certain 

respects, see Section II.C page 14 below. 34See Final WIR Evaluation, p. 4–2; 5–1. 

used for waste retrieved from SSTs, 

allowing for optimized retrieval 

sequencing to reduce environmental 

and human health risk more rapidly.26

Again, these distinctions as applied to 

the 2,000 gallons are small, but if the 

TBI demonstrates the effectiveness of a 

regulatory pathway for other Hanford 

low-activity waste via grouting and 

offsite disposal, that could substantially 

facilitate DOE’s ability to meet its SST 

retrieval schedule and allow DOE to 

complete its cleanup mission in less 

time than it would if vitrification is 

required for all of Hanford’s low-activity 

waste.27 Grouting could provide an 

alternative treatment pathway that 

would allow 200 West Area tanks to be 

retrieved, and supernate from those 

tanks to be treated and disposed of 

offsite, decades earlier than the baseline 

approach of vitrification. Given that 

these tanks are well past their design 

life and are at risk of leaking, this would 

help mitigate the environmental risk of 

this tank waste (and attendant costs) 

sooner. 

Second, vitrification of the 2,000 

gallons of Tank SY–101 supernate 

would result in certain secondary 

impacts, which are unnecessary and 

avoidable under these circumstances 

given the efficacy of grouting, the 

protective geologic features of the 

identified disposal sites, and the terms 

of the proposed variance. When LAW is 

vitrified, the water present in LAW is 

not incorporated into the glass matrix as 

part of the treatment process. The water 

initially present in the LAW, as well as 

any water produced as part of the 

treatment process, must then be 

recycled back into the vitrification 

system or managed as a liquid 

secondary waste, which would contain 

low levels of radionuclides and 

hazardous constituents not otherwise 

immobilized or destroyed by the glassforming step. In contrast, when 

pretreated LAW is grouted instead of 

vitrified, the water content of the waste 

is incorporated into the cementitious 

matrix. 

Vitrification also generates secondary 

waste streams (such as high-efficiency 

particulate air filters, carbon adsorber 

beds, spent or failed melters, and melter 

components), whereas grouting 

generates minimal secondary wastes.28

Furthermore, vitrification is a high 

temperature process that generates 

offgas that requires management and 

treatment for worker and public 

protection, whereas grouting takes place 

at much lower temperatures and is less 

energy-intensive than vitrification.29

Vitrification of TBI tank waste would 

also be more costly than grouting to 

achieve near-term risk reduction. 

Additional vitrification capability 

would need to be constructed before the 

TBI waste and any other low-activity 

waste from Hanford’s 200 West Area 

could be vitrified. Multiple independent 

sources estimate the costs of grouting 

and off-site disposal vs vitrification.30

For example, the 2023 FFRDC FollowOn Report states that grouting would 

minimize financial demands by 

reducing mission duration and lifecycle 

costs and indicates that grouting is 

clearly executable at benchmark funding 

levels.31 In light of this, EPA believes 

grouting and offsite disposal of TBI 

waste in accordance with the terms of 

this approval would be cheaper than 

vitrification. Cost savings can also be 

realized by reducing the amount of 

waste that needs to be managed in 

tanks. The GAO reported in 2021 that 

DOE spent more than $400 million per 

year from 2017–2019 maintaining the 

waste in the tanks.32 Finally, the 

reduction of waste quantity managed in 

aging tanks has the potential to reduce 

cleanups costs associated with waste 

leaking from the tanks. 

EPA recognizes there are differences 

in reporting on how much time, cost, 

and secondary impacts would be 

reduced by grouting some of the 

Hanford low-activity waste rather than 

vitrifying it. However, EPA believes 

there would be savings under all three 

metrics. 

Finally, the characteristics of the two 

facilities that would be authorized for 

disposal of the grouted waste form 

under the proposed variance support 

EPA’s proposed determination that 

requiring HLVIT would be technically 

inappropriate for the TBI waste as 

described below. 

First, these two facilities feature 

favorable physical, including geologic, 

features, as described in section II.C 

below.33 These features would help 

ensure that threats to human health and 

the environment posed by disposal of 

the grouted SY–101 supernate are 

minimized. EPA’s proposed technical 

inappropriateness determination is 

dependent on its proposed threat 

minimization determination. 

Second, because the pre-treated LAW 

will still contain radionuclides, EPA 

notes that disposal must be in 

accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC) performance 

objectives at 10 CFR part 61, subpart C 

for disposal of LLW. The performance 

objective requirements for licensed 

MLLW disposal facilities in the Texas 

Administrative Code and the Utah 

Administrative Code mirror and are 

comparable to the NRC’s performance 

objectives, as discussed in detail in the 

2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration Final 

WIR Evaluation.34

For all the reasons above, EPA 

concludes that requiring treatment by 

vitrification would be technically 

inappropriate for this 2,000 gallons of 

Tank SY–101 supernate in view of the 

efficacy of grouting, the protective 

geologic features of the identified 

disposal sites, and the conditions 

specified in the proposed variance. 

C. Proposed Minimization of Threat 

Determination 

EPA proposes to determine that 

grouting of the pre-treated, low activity 

fraction of the Tank SY–101 supernate, 

under the terms of the proposed 

variance, would minimize threats to 

human health and the environment 

posed by disposal of the waste. The 

proposed minimization of threat finding 

is predicated on the TBI waste being 

treated to the LDR standard of STABL, 

with verification through samples 

collected after grouting to demonstrate 

that the stabilization achieves the NWW 

LDR concentration-based and Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP)-based standards, as applicable, 

for F001–F005 (limited to constituents 

associated with spent solvent activities 

at the Facility); D001–D011, D018, 

D019, D022, D028–D030, D033–D036, 

D038–D041, and D043. 

The EPA-approved STABL treatment 

technology is described as 

‘‘[s]tabilization with the following 

reagents (or waste reagents) or 

combinations of reagents: (1) Portland 

cement; or (2) lime/pozzolans (e.g., fly 

ash and cement kiln dust) . . .’’ 40 CFR 

268.42. This method includes the 

grouting technology that DOE requests 

approval for. As described above, EPA 

in the Third Third Rule preamble 

generally concluded that stabilization 

was an appropriate technology for lowlevel waste fractions that are separated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83071 

35 DOE has requested this confirmation sampling 

in the context of the 2,000-gallon TBI to support 

and inform the development of a possible methodbased treatment standard for other Hanford tank 

waste. DOE indicates that it may submit a variance 

request in the future for other tank waste that may 

provide a basis to eliminate the need for posttreatment sampling. Today’s proposal is limited to 

the 2,000-gallon TBI, and EPA expresses no view 

as to the appropriateness of proposals DOE may 

advance in the future for treatment of other Hanford 

tank waste. 

36 DOE details in their petition: In Tank SY–101 

supernate, chromium was detected at 95.8 mg/L. 

Available data on chromium in relation to DOE’s 

Cast Stone formulation indicate that the retention 

factor for chromium is between 3.3×10–5 and 

1.3×10–4 (mg_Cr/L_leachate)/(mg_Cr/kg_solid), 

which corresponds to an EPA SW–846 Method 

1311 TCLP concentration of between 9.9×10–4 and 

3.9×10–3 (mg_Cr/L_leachate). In contrast, the NWW 

treatment standard for chromium is 0.6 (mg_Cr/L_

leachate). Thus, the TCLP leachate concentration 

for the grouted waste form is expected to be two or 

three orders of magnitude less than the NWW 

numerical standard. 

37EPA 402–R–96–014, Stabilization/ 

Solidification Processes for Mixed Waste, page 36. 

38 GAO–22–104365, Nuclear Waste Disposal: 

Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision That Could 

Save Tens of Billions of Dollars, at 50–51. 

39 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

13. 

40 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

18. 

41 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

18. 

42 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

33. 

43 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

33. 

44 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

27. 

45 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

31. 

46 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G– 

31. 

47 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p. 52. 

from the high-level waste generated 

during the reprocessing of fuel rods. To 

comply with STABL, the offsite 

commercial treatment facilities would 

be required to use the appropriate 

stabilization methods that meet 

applicable regulatory requirements in 

accordance with the facilities’ waste 

permits and radioactive material 

licenses, as applicable. 

Moreover, under the proposed 

variance, the grouted waste would be 

required to meet the numerical 

treatment standards applicable to the 

waste codes for the subject waste. While 

confirmation sampling would not 

typically be conducted for waste subject 

to the STABL standard, since it is a 

method-based standard, sampling after 

treatment at the offsite commercial 

treatment facilities would be conducted 

for the purpose of validating treatment 

performance against the NWW 

numerical standards at 268.40 and, as 

applicable, at 268.48.35 EPA determined 

in promulgating these numerical 

standards that they minimize threats 

posed by disposal of hazardous waste 

bearing the relevant waste codes, as 

required by RCRA section 3004(m). 

Based on the sampling data provided 

by DOE, EPA fully expects that the 

numerical treatment standards will be 

met. All metals other than chromium 

are below NWW TCLP standards based 

on their measured total concentrations 

in Tank SY–101. A previous grouting 

recipe used by DOE provided a 

retention factor for chromium which 

can be used to predict the TCLP 

concentrations found in the final 

grouted waste form. This demonstration 

showed that the chromium TCLP 

leachate concentration in the grouted 

waste form would be two to three orders 

of magnitude less than the NWW TCLP 

numerical standard.36 While this grout 

recipe may not be identical to the recipe 

used in this proposed action, grouting is 

generally BDAT for metal constituents 

and is therefore expected to immobilize 

the chromium and therefore minimize 

threats.37

As described earlier, the organic 

wastes are already at least an order of 

magnitude below the NWW standards, 

except for 1-butanol, which below or 

just slightly above the treatment 

standard. For this reason, targeted 

organics destruction or removal in 

addition to grouting is not necessary to 

minimize threats to health and the 

environment. 

EPA’s proposed determination is 

supported by independent assessments. 

For example, experts convened by the 

National Academies of Science in 2016 

concluded that both vitrification and 

grout could effectively treat Hanford 

low activity waste and be protective of 

human health.38

Finally, the treatment and disposal 

facilities that would be authorized by 

this variance are particularly 

appropriate for this waste. Most 

importantly, the grouted waste form will 

be disposed of at EnergySolutions in 

Utah and/or Waste Control Specialists 

in Texas, both of which are commercial 

facilities that are RCRA-permitted and 

licensed by the applicable State 

authorities pursuant to their agreement 

with the NRC to accept mixed waste in 

accordance with their Waste Acceptance 

Criteria. Because the pre-treated LAW 

will still contain radionuclides, disposal 

must be in accordance with the NRC 

performance objectives at 10 CFR part 

61, subpart C for disposal of LLW. The 

performance objective requirements for 

licensed MLLW disposal facilities in the 

Texas Administrative Code and the 

Utah Administrative Code mirror and 

are comparable to the NRC’s 

performance objectives, as discussed in 

detail in the 2,000-gallon TBI 

Demonstration Final WIR Evaluation. 

Those licensed facilities are subject to 

regulations and conditions that ensure 

the protection of public health and 

safety and the environment. 

The disposal facilities were also 

specifically selected based on their 

location, geology, hydrogeology, and 

experience in receiving comparable 

waste types for disposal. The 

EnergySolutions facility is located in a 

remote area of Utah with lowpermeability clay soils immediately 

under the facility. Any potential for 

exposures via the groundwater pathway 

is further reduced due to naturally poor 

groundwater quality at the site which is 

extremely saline and exceeds EPA and 

Utah State drinking water standards for 

several naturally occuring 

constituents.39 No domestic water use 

occurs within 10 km of the facility.40

The precipitation levels in the area are 

low, evaporation is high, and the nearest 

stream channel is 2 miles east of the 

facility, thus minimizing the potential 

for releases via any surface water 

pathway.41 All of those characteristics 

make the site well-suited for the 

disposal of the TBI waste. 

Similarly, the Waste Control 

Specialists FWF facility is in a physical 

setting that is naturally protective of 

human health and the environment. The 

area receives less than 16 inches of 

precipitation annually and 

evapotranspiration exceeds 

precipitation rates.42 There are no 

perennial streams on or near the site.43

The site sits on top of a 600-ft geologic 

layer of silts, muds and other lowpermeability constituents.44 The first 

continuously saturated zone is 225 ft 

below ground surface and has extremely 

low permeability, retaining water from 

the Pleistocene era.45 The water volume 

is not sufficient to support an 

individual, and is non-potable.46

The geologic features, low infiltration, 

and no credible pathway to surface 

water or potable water aquifers at both 

EnergySolutions in Utah and Waste 

Control Specialists in Texas provide 

additional long-term environmental 

protections for waste that would help 

ensure that threats to human health and 

the environment posed by the disposal 

of the grouted SY–101 supernate are 

minimized.47 Conversely, with respect 

to geology, Hanford’s IDF overlies 

unconsolidated to semi-consolidated 

sediments with no intervening natural 

barrier between the landfill and the 

underlying aquifer. However, EPA is not 

making a decision on whether a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83072 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

variance would be appropriate for 

disposal in landfills other than those 

evaluated in the petition. 

disposal in landfills other than those 

evaluated in the petition. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO 40 CFR 268.44(o) FOR THE TBI DEMONSTRATION PETITION

WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS UNDER § 268.40 

Facility name and 

address Waste code See also Regulated hazardous constituent 

Wastewaters Nonwastewaters 

Concentration 

(mg/L) Notes Concentration (mg/L) Notes 

United States Department of Energy (Energy), 

Richland, WA17.

F001–F005 D001– 

D011, D018, 

D019, D022, 

D028–D030, 

D033–D036, 

D038–D041, and 

D043 18.

NA .................. For waste codes F001–F005, 

the constituents are limited 

to those associated with 

spent solvent activities at 

the Facility documented 

through process knowledge.

For constituents, as applicable, associated with D 

waste codes under the 

‘‘Waste Code’’ column, see 

40 CFR 268.40.

NA .................. NA .................. STABL19 20 ..... NA. 

17The STABL treatment standard applies to the separated and pretreated tank waste under the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration. 18The waste codes included in this column are those identified on the current version of the Dangerous Waste Permit Application Part A form for the Hanford Double Shell Tank System, Rev. 04 (December 14, 2009), except for F039 which has not been accepted into the Double Shell Tanks. 19Sampling after treatment will be conducted at the treatment facility for the purpose of assessing the extent of treatment performance against the NWW numerical 

standards at 268.40 and, as applicable, at 268.48. Waste treated using STABL may not be land disposed until LDR constituents are below the non-wastewater numerical standards at 40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48. 20Treatment using the STABL treatment method shall be performed, and the treated waste shall be disposed of, at EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and/or Waste 

Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Land and Emergency Management. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26123 Filed 11–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1